There are only a few million people who buy luxury watches in the world. But they also are the wealthiest.
The LUXURY watch market ALONE - lead by Rolex and Omega - is a $16 BILLION market.
This is larger than the movie industry. And this is close to the size of the video game market.
As a NICHE market, it is substantial. The leaders only have to sell a few thousand watches. And the buyers are those Apple is interested in - the affluent consumers.
And if Apple were able to generalize the sales to a larger set of consumers - to include sport watches, Timex watches, etc., particularly with a higher price point similar to the iPod - then it stands to make a substantial amount of money.
Certainly it is a potentially LARGER amount of profit than Apple would gain from AppleTV.
This is the motivation behind the iWatch.
From an August 2012 Report
Despite the continued posting of losses in the US market, according to a Reuters report, the gaming industry is projected to hit $70 billion, globally, up from $65 billion in 2011.
The iwatch modality will be the '.5' device... really the 'iphone shuffle' sort of device. Works in concert with your other devices, does a very specific set of ancillary jobs (my guess... think shuffle that can do M7 sort of data gathering, display imessage/calendar/notifications, and gather biotelemetry (HR, BP, ideally some blood electrolytes). And talks to another iDevice via some lowpower BT or other network method when in range to sync up/xfer telemetry data and the next set of iRadio tunes for your workout.
It will be less 'another device' than 'an idevice enhancement unit'
Interesting details, but my point remains. It's one more thing to remember before I go out the door. We live in a much more complicated world when that list was: 1. Wallet, 2. Keys. At some point people will begin to say, "Enough!"
For an "iWatch" to succeed, it has to come in flavors (not just colors, but styles) that appeal to someone's personal sense of taste. Most people today buy watches for the fashion not the function and they buy sports wrist bands for the function, not necessarily the fashion.
Furthermore, shoehorning apps onto a device of this type (or even a TV for that matter) doesn't make them "smart", it makes them cumbersome and they usually end up with a horrible user interface and experience (e.g. Galaxy Gear); functions and interface need to be refined and deliberate and make sense for the product they're designed for.
1. It'll be a device with time, motion, proximity, and bio based features.
2. It will be able to connect to a mobile device to gain access to databases and specific apps, and receive and display "context- based" information and notifications that someone can quickly glance at.
Anyone who tries to make a "smart" watch do anything more than that, will fail. Plain and simple. A mobile phone or computer on your wrist will only appeal to the geekiest of geeks.
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
I could not agree with you more. It's baseless speculation -- and a little insulting -- that it'll be separated for genders. That's simply not helpful at all.
Right except that there is a long history of segmenting the watch market by gender, especially at the high end of the market. But I agree that Apple would likely be more subtle about it (not calling the two sizes M and F).
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
2. iPad air, iPad mini. The iWatch will not require fiddly multi-finger input, so the size won't matter.
3. The iWatch won't be (primarily) a watch (which is why it probably won't be called that, Apple trademark notwithstanding). The fact that most people don't wear watches is a plus for Apple--they don't have to displace anything; wrists are available.
10 years ago (15?) what percentage of people in the US (or the world) carried a cell phone with them wherever they went? Now that number is approaching 100%. And that's because of smart phones (the iPhone specifically and the copycat Android), not because using the telephone became so much more important. Having something strapped to your wrist (or pinned to your clothing) is a natural evolution of carrying of a brick of glass, metal, and plastic everywhere. Look ahead 10-20 years and I bet the current form factor of phones/smart phones will have vanished.
Different size for woman and men? Perhaps different sizes for those who like big and small watches, no matter the gender. Please, don't make this a gender thing
I think one of the main problems with the watch is it takes both hands to use it. One to roll it over and in one to press a button. I've gotten used to my iPhone where I carry in one pocket with one hand and can do what I need to do … with one hand
I think all the analysts and journalists who started rumors should start a company since they were so innovative and resourceful. Consider calling iRumor or iIdiot inc
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
My feeling is it will be a watch in much the same way the iPhone is a "phone" ie much more than that. If it can warn people of health problems etc if could sell in the hundreds of millions. It will probably be also used to trace people or as an emergency call mechanism - transmitting the location to the police. ( true a phone can do this big you need to get it out of your pocket. ) making the person seem safer could be the killer app.
2. iPad air, iPad mini. The iWatch will not require fiddly multi-finger input, so the size won't matter.
3. The iWatch won't be (primarily) a watch (which is why it probably won't be called that, Apple trademark notwithstanding). The fact that most people don't wear watches is a plus for Apple--they don't have to displace anything; wrists are available.
10 years ago (15?) what percentage of people in the US (or the world) carried a cell phone with them wherever they went? Now that number is approaching 100%. And that's because of smart phones (the iPhone specifically and the copycat Android), not because using the telephone became so much more important. Having something strapped to your wrist (or pinned to your clothing) is a natural evolution of carrying of a brick of glass, metal, and plastic everywhere. Look ahead 10-20 years and I bet the current form factor of phones/smart phones will have vanished.
I am not going to enjoy videos on my watch, or read a book. So no.
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
Agree with the first two comments, but I disagree with the implication of the third.
The reason people don't wear watches anymore is because their function has been made irrelevant by the fact that everyone carries a smartphone and so doesn't need to wear a time piece. The traditional watch function has been superseded.
Now, if someone were to make an object that fits on the wrist but serves useful functions that are unique, then I don't see a reason why people wouldn't start wearing said object. It's not like the majority of people suddenly decided that watches were ugly or bad in any way. My hunch is that most people are agnostic about watches, but they just don't wear them because there is no need.
If Apple provides a new "need", then people will start wearing them. Apple can create a new market. Again.
Comments
There are only a few million people who buy luxury watches in the world. But they also are the wealthiest.
The LUXURY watch market ALONE - lead by Rolex and Omega - is a $16 BILLION market.
This is larger than the movie industry. And this is close to the size of the video game market.
As a NICHE market, it is substantial. The leaders only have to sell a few thousand watches. And the buyers are those Apple is interested in - the affluent consumers.
And if Apple were able to generalize the sales to a larger set of consumers - to include sport watches, Timex watches, etc., particularly with a higher price point similar to the iPod - then it stands to make a substantial amount of money.
Certainly it is a potentially LARGER amount of profit than Apple would gain from AppleTV.
This is the motivation behind the iWatch.
From an August 2012 Report
Despite the continued posting of losses in the US market, according to a Reuters report, the gaming industry is projected to hit $70 billion, globally, up from $65 billion in 2011.
The iwatch modality will be the '.5' device... really the 'iphone shuffle' sort of device. Works in concert with your other devices, does a very specific set of ancillary jobs (my guess... think shuffle that can do M7 sort of data gathering, display imessage/calendar/notifications, and gather biotelemetry (HR, BP, ideally some blood electrolytes). And talks to another iDevice via some lowpower BT or other network method when in range to sync up/xfer telemetry data and the next set of iRadio tunes for your workout.
It will be less 'another device' than 'an idevice enhancement unit'
Interesting details, but my point remains. It's one more thing to remember before I go out the door. We live in a much more complicated world when that list was: 1. Wallet, 2. Keys. At some point people will begin to say, "Enough!"
iWatch and iWait...
For an "iWatch" to succeed, it has to come in flavors (not just colors, but styles) that appeal to someone's personal sense of taste. Most people today buy watches for the fashion not the function and they buy sports wrist bands for the function, not necessarily the fashion.
Furthermore, shoehorning apps onto a device of this type (or even a TV for that matter) doesn't make them "smart", it makes them cumbersome and they usually end up with a horrible user interface and experience (e.g. Galaxy Gear); functions and interface need to be refined and deliberate and make sense for the product they're designed for.
1. It'll be a device with time, motion, proximity, and bio based features.
2. It will be able to connect to a mobile device to gain access to databases and specific apps, and receive and display "context- based" information and notifications that someone can quickly glance at.
Anyone who tries to make a "smart" watch do anything more than that, will fail. Plain and simple. A mobile phone or computer on your wrist will only appeal to the geekiest of geeks.
A number of things I find wrong here.
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
I could not agree with you more. It's baseless speculation -- and a little insulting -- that it'll be separated for genders. That's simply not helpful at all.
Right except that there is a long history of segmenting the watch market by gender, especially at the high end of the market. But I agree that Apple would likely be more subtle about it (not calling the two sizes M and F).
A number of things I find wrong here.
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
2. iPad air, iPad mini. The iWatch will not require fiddly multi-finger input, so the size won't matter.
3. The iWatch won't be (primarily) a watch (which is why it probably won't be called that, Apple trademark notwithstanding). The fact that most people don't wear watches is a plus for Apple--they don't have to displace anything; wrists are available.
10 years ago (15?) what percentage of people in the US (or the world) carried a cell phone with them wherever they went? Now that number is approaching 100%. And that's because of smart phones (the iPhone specifically and the copycat Android), not because using the telephone became so much more important. Having something strapped to your wrist (or pinned to your clothing) is a natural evolution of carrying of a brick of glass, metal, and plastic everywhere. Look ahead 10-20 years and I bet the current form factor of phones/smart phones will have vanished.
I don't see it either. I think this is a niche market and too small to have any effect.
Exactly. A toy project for TC.
I think one of the main problems with the watch is it takes both hands to use it. One to roll it over and in one to press a button. I've gotten used to my iPhone where I carry in one pocket with one hand and can do what I need to do … with one hand
SIRI controller?
My feeling is it will be a watch in much the same way the iPhone is a "phone" ie much more than that. If it can warn people of health problems etc if could sell in the hundreds of millions. It will probably be also used to trace people or as an emergency call mechanism - transmitting the location to the police. ( true a phone can do this big you need to get it out of your pocket. ) making the person seem safer could be the killer app.
The LUXURY watch market ALONE - lead by Rolex and Omega - is a $16 BILLION market...
... the leaders only have to sell a few thousand watches.
I'm trying to reconcile the two previous statements found within your post. It sounds like you're talking about million dollar watches.
Thompson
I am not going to enjoy videos on my watch, or read a book. So no.
A number of things I find wrong here.
1: It makes no sense that Apple would make something purely for men and for women. They would make something androgynous.
2: Two screen sizes means different interactions to a certain extent and that's NOT Apple's style.
3: I had a conversation on Tuesday night with a mate of mine and he made the comment he actively looks out for people wearing watches because it's just not something you see much these days... people wearing watches. Why would Apple go after a market no one uses anymore?
Agree with the first two comments, but I disagree with the implication of the third.
The reason people don't wear watches anymore is because their function has been made irrelevant by the fact that everyone carries a smartphone and so doesn't need to wear a time piece. The traditional watch function has been superseded.
Now, if someone were to make an object that fits on the wrist but serves useful functions that are unique, then I don't see a reason why people wouldn't start wearing said object. It's not like the majority of people suddenly decided that watches were ugly or bad in any way. My hunch is that most people are agnostic about watches, but they just don't wear them because there is no need.
If Apple provides a new "need", then people will start wearing them. Apple can create a new market. Again.
Thompson
I don't see it either. I think this is a niche market and too small to have any effect.
How can you say that when you don't know what it is?
You don't know what it does.
You don't know how much it costs.
What if it cost $99 dollars and stopped aging? Still a niche market?
What if it cost 99 cents and made your farts smell like roses? Still a niche market?
Made of plastic and comes in six colors...
A hypothetical iWatch does not necessarily need two hands to operate.
It could employ gestures to interact with notifications or answer calls.(think turning a door knob or knocking)
Also just raising your arm up quickly to your mouth could be used to invoke Siri.
1. gives notifications from you phone
2. tracts walking, calories burned, ect
3. Use to open/start car
4. Use to unarm/arm home security
5. use as music player with wireless headphones
those features alone would make this a $299 device
Combine an iWatches with iBeacons to enable accurate tracking and interaction with your environment.
Made of plastic and comes in six colors...
Made of plastic and comes in six colors... $299 & $399
Made of stainless steel and comes in space gray or gold... $499 & $599